HABITAT CONDITIONS
Dam and Hydropower Influences
One water control structure, Dawt Mill Dam, is located on the mainstem of the North Fork River in
Missouri. The dam is a low dam (less than 10 feet high) and is located 1.8 miles above Tecumseh. The
original Dawt Mill Dam was constructed in late 1800s in order to supply power to the machinery of Dawt
Mill (Cochran 1980 and Robins 1991d). Both the dam and mill were replaced shortly after the turn of the
century. The dam was rebuilt again in the 1970s after flood debris severly damaged the dam (Cochran
1980). Other water control structures within the watershed in Missouri include Noblett Lake Dam
(Noblett Creek), Rockbridge Dam (Spring Creek), and Althea Spring Dam (Althea Spring Branch). All
were constructed prior to 1940. Figure Hc01 displays the location of the previously mentioned water
control structures.
The North Fork River flows into Norfork Lake which has a recognized beginning at the confluence of
Bryant Creek. Norfork Lake Dam was completed in 1944 and is located 4.8 river miles upstream from
the confluence of the North Fork with the White River near Norfork, Arkansas (USACOE 1993).
Norfork Lake Dam impounds 1,983,000 acre feet of water with a surface area of 30,700 acres at top of
flood control pool.
Channel Alterations
There have been no significant channel alterations anywhere throughout the North Fork Watershed.
Small channelization projects have probably occurred on private property and also from road and bridge
construction. However, these activities currently are not considered to be a major threat to the river
system. Currently (1999) there are no planned state transportation projects involving bridge construction
within the watershed from 1999-2004(MDT 1999).
In 1998 there were 24 permitted gravel removal operations within the watershed (Figure Wq06)
(USACOE 1998). The negative impacts of gravel mining have been shown to include channel deepening,
sedimentation of downstream habitats, accelerated bank erosion, the formation of a wider and shallower
channel, the lowering of the floodplain water table, and channel shift (Roell 1999).
Natural Features
Between 1987 and 1991 the Missouri Department of Conservation inventoried counties within the North
Fork Watershed for unique natural features (Smith 1990; Ryan and Smith 1991). The inventories
recognized seven categories of natural features: examples of undisturbed natural communities, habitat of
rare or endangered species, habitat of relict species, outstanding geological formations, areas for nature
studies, other unique features, and special aquatic areas having good water quality, flora, and fauna.
These studies identified 177 potential natural features in the North Fork Watershed. Of the 177 sites, 124
had exceptional or highly significant natural features. The North Fork River and Bryant Creek were
recognized as highly significant natural features. Roaring Spring, Hodgson Mill Spring, Althea Spring,
Crystal Spring, Rockbridge (Morris) Spring, and Double Spring were recognized as highly significant
spring sites.
Since the initial natural features inventory effort the Missouri Natural Heritage Database (NHD) has been
created. The database lists many of the features which are included in the Missouri Natural Features
HC 1
Inventory. The database, which is updated frequently, is a dynamic representation of the occurrence of
many natural features in Missouri. Currently the database contains 294 features for the North Fork
Watershed. These include 49 examples of 18 types of natural communities: The North Fork River,
Bryant Creek, and Spring Creek are recognized as significant examples of Ozark creek and small river
communities (MDC 1999c). Unique and outstanding dolomite bluffs, glades, and dry mesic chert forests
are common throughout the watershed. Recorded occurrences of natural features currently (1999) in the
NHD for the North Fork Watershed include
Caves-6
Creeks and Small Rivers (Ozark)-3
Dolomite Glade-10
Dry Chert Forest-1
Dry Limestone/Dolomite Cliff-1
Dry-Mesic Bottomland Forest-1
Dry-Mesic Chert Forest-3
Dry-Mesic Chert Prairie-1
Dry-Mesic Sandstone Forest-1
Fen-8
Fresh Water Marsh-1
Headwater Stream (Ozark)-1
Mesic Limestone/Dolomite Forest-1
Moist Limestone/Dolomite Cliff-3
Moist Sandstone Cliff-3
Pond Shrub Swamp-2
Prairie Fen-2
Shrub Swamp-1
A detailed description of these terrestrial natural communities can be found in The Terrestrial Natural
Communities of Missouri by Nelson (1987), while a detailed description of Missouri’s aquatic
communities can be found in Aquatic Community Classification System for Missouri by Pflieger (1989)
Undoubtably more examples of natural features exist within the watershed. However due to many
circumstances including the limited access to private land and the large land area, many features may be
as yet unrecorded. Therefore, the previous listing of features should not be regarded as final. However,
this listing does provide a good cross section of the types of communities which can be found within the
watershed.
HC 2
Improvement Projects
There are currently (1998) 3 DSP-3 projects within the North Fork Watershed. These are intensive
rotational grazing programs sponsored by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and
involve alternative watering systems. All are in progress. There are 3 completed Landowner Cooperative
Projects including a cedar tree revetment project completed in cooperation with the United States Forest
Service and located at the North Fork Recreation Area. One other project is currently awaiting landowner
approval (Pratt personal communication 1998). Table Hc01 lists all stream related projects in the
watershed.
Stream Habitat Assessment
In 1996 and 1998, stream and riparian habitat quality were evaluated at 13 sites within the North Fork
Watershed. Of the 13 sites, 6 were located in the Bryant Creek Subwatershed, 6 in the North Fork
Watershed above the Bryant Creek confluence, and 1 in the Norfork Lake and Tributaries Subwatershed.
These sites generally corresponded to 1996 fish community sample sites. Habitat quality was assessed
using the MDC Stream Habitat Annotation Device (SHAD II). Selected SHAD data was entered into a
geographic information system (GIS) database based on a numerical system which enabled more
efficient analysis of data. Sites were evaluated based on the following SHAD categories: "streambank
erosion", "streambank erosion protection", "percent timbered stream corridor", and "narrowest width of
timbered corridor". Numerical values associated with different levels of condition for each category were
then assigned to left and right streambanks and corridors evaluated with 1 being extremely poor and 5
being excellent. These values were then averaged to give an overall grade for the site (Figure Hc02). The
lowest grade within the North Fork Watershed was a 3 (fair). Three sites received this rating. Five sites
were rated as 5 (excellent). The remaining five sites were rated as good.
There appears to be no significant distribution pattern of SHAD sites relative to grade. This illustrates the
complications of using SHAD data as a means for determining watershed and even subwatershed habitat
condition. Depending on site selection methodology as well as the level of homogeny of habitat within a
watershed, the SHAD can be a very site specific method of habitat evaluation. Thus, in most cases, the
more broadly that SHAD data is applied to a watershed, the less accurate it becomes.
Perhaps one of the more difficult attributes of a watershed to attempt to quantify is stream habitat. This is
due to the fact that there are several dynamic characteristics which make up stream habitat. To evaluate
all of these characteristics individually and accurately for an entire watershed is a monumental task and
beyond the scope of this document. Thus, the next best thing is to evaluate a characteristic that has the
most impact on all aspects of stream habitat. This is, arguably, riparian corridor land cover/land use.
Riparian corridor land cover effects many aspects of stream habitat. These include, but are not limited to
water temperature, turbidity, nutrient loading, sand/gravel deposition, instream cover, flow, channel
width, and channel stability. These in turn have effects on still other characteristics of stream habitat such
as food availability, dissolved oxygen, cover, spawning areas, etc.
Evaluation of riparian corridor land cover/land use within the North Fork Watershed was accomplished
using Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership Phase 1 Land Cover Data(morapmd.wpd). A buffer
zone 3 pixels (90 meters) wide was created which corresponded to a 1:100,000 hydrography coverage for
the watershed. This was split into segments no longer than 0.25 miles long (Caldwell, personal
communication). Percent land use for each segment was then calculated. Land cover/land use categories
included forest, woodland, grassland, cropland, urban, and water. Percentages of these categories were
HC 3
then calculated for riparian corridors within each of the 30 fourteen digit hydrologic units, the 6 eleven
digit hydrologic units within the watershed, as well as the whole watershed.
Results for the entire watershed indicate that riparian corridor land use consists of more forest/woodland
(64.9%) than grassland/cropland (34.2%). Combined percentages for the remaining categories are less
than 1% of the total riparian corridor land cover/land use in the watershed. Of the 6 eleven digit
hydrologic units (HUs) within the watershed, the Upper North Fork HU has the highest combined
percentage of forest/woodland corridor land cover/land use at 71.2%. It also has the lowest combined
percentage of grassland/cropland corridor land use at 28.3%. This is due in large part to the fact that
much of this section is part of the Mark Twain National Forest. Table Hc02 gives riparian corridor land
cover/land use percentages for all fourteen digit hydrologic units within the watershed as well as
percentages for the three major drainage sections of the watershed and the total watershed. Figure Hc03
presents a graphic representation of riparian corridor land cover/land use for all fourteen digit hydrologic
units within the watershed.
An aerial stream survey of the North Fork River Watershed was made during March and April, 1996.
The survey flight covered the entire length of the North Fork, Bryant Creek, and many other major
tributaries. A catalog of the flight, highlighting stream and riparian destabilization areas and other
significant landmarks has been completed. Highway and topographic maps have been labeled according
to the video index time. The catalogs also include an index of slides taken during the flight. Information
from this survey will be useful for a variety of projects such as future habitat assessment, assisting
landowners with problems associated with stream bank erosion and deposition, reviewing gravel mining
permits, selection of aquatic biota sampling sites, etc.
Cold Water Habitat
Approximately 39 miles of stream within the North Fork Watershed are designated for cold-water sport
fishery (Figure Hc04)(MDNR 1996a). Approximately 14 miles of the North Fork River are designated
for cold-water sport fishery. Table Hc03 lists additional stream segments designated for cold-water sport
fishery.
In an effort to further quantify cold water resources within the North Fork Watershed, instantaneous
stream temperatures were recorded at many stream crossings within the watershed during August of
1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994. Results from this preliminary study were then used to determine sites for
placement of thermographs (long term temperature recorders). These were placed at 47 selected sites in
the summer of 1995 and 1996 (Table Hc04). Thermographs were programmed to record temperatures
every 2 hours. Period of record for the thermographs varied from 12-64 days. Average stream
temperature at each site for period of record was determined and then compared to average air
temperature (Mountain Grove) for period of record (Figure Hc04). Figure Hc05 displays results of
comparisons of average stream temperature and average air temperature for sites exhibiting an average
air temperature of 80 degrees Fahrenheit or higher. The higher average air temperature at these sites
enables a more confident determination of spring influenced sites. Figure Hc06 shows the comparison of
temperature graphs between air temperature, a spring influenced site, and a non-spring influenced site.
The limited period of record for some thermograph sites as well as a relatively mild summer in 1996
limits the use of some of this data. Results of comparisons between sites with different periods of record
are questionable. Furthermore, sites with shorter periods of record or periods which occur later in the
summer typically exhibit cooler average air temperatures and thus a smaller gradient between the average
HC 4
air and average stream temperature. Additional temperature study will be required in order to further
determine spring influence within the watershed.
HC 5
HC 6
HC 7
HC 8
GE 9
HC 10
HC 11
HC 12
HC 13
HC 14
Table Hc01. Missouri Department of Conservation stream improvement projects within the North Fork
River Watershed. (Pratt, personal communication)
Affected Stream
Project Type
Completion Date
Bryant Cr.
Cedar Tree Revetment
May, 1997
Bryant Cr.
Willow/Sycamore Pole Stabilization
winter/spring 1998
Spring Cr.
In-Stream Habitat Improvement
winter/spring 1998
Bennett’s Bayou
Alternative Watering System
winter/spring 1998
S. Bridges Cr.
Alternative Watering System
winter/spring 1998
Willow/Sycamore Pole Stabilization
winter/spring 1998
North Fork R.
Alternative Watering System
summer 1998
North Fork R.*
Cedar Tree Revetment
summer 1994
Lick Cr.
*In cooperation with the United States Forest Service.
HC 15
Table Hc02. Percent riparian corridor land use for 14 digit and 11digit (bold) hydrologic units within the
North Fork Watershed. Data is based on MORAP Phase 1 Land Cover (1997) as analyzed by Caldwell
(1998).
Subwatershed
FOR
WDL
GRS
CRP
URB
WAT
10001
54.2
11.7
30.5
3.2
0
0.4
10002
46.3
8.6
40.2
4.7
0
0.2
10003
62.5
19.7
16.0
1.4
0
0.4
10004
55.1
28.6
13.6
1.3
0
1.4
Upper North Fork
55.1
16.1
25.6
2.7
0
0.5
20001
56.2
5.7
34.3
3.6
0.1
0.1
20002
50.8
5.2
39.6
4.0
0.4
<0.1
20003
56.7
4.2
33.9
5.3
0
<0.1
20004
47.7
12.9
31.1
8.1
0
0.1
20005
54.6
17.3
24.6
3.3
0
0.2
20006
45.4
4.9
46.0
3.6
0
<0.1
20007
60.0
20.7
17.1
1.3
0
0.9
Upper Bryant
53.0
10.0
32.4
4.3
<0.1
0.2
30001
58.8
27.2
11.6
1.8
0
0.6
30002
40.8
20.4
35.5
3.3
0
<0.1
30003
43.5
26.5
27.9
1.3
0
0.8
30004
28.7
8.5
60.1
2.4
0
0.3
30005
54.2
19.5
24.4
1.8
0
0.1
30006
42.9
33.0
18.6
0.8
0
4.7
Lower North Fork
44.6
22.3
30.2
1.9
0
0.9
HC 16
40001
47.7
14.8
31.7
5.7
0
0.2
40002
51.6
24.2
20.8
2.5
0
0.9
0.3
40003
45.5
9.3
40.1
4.7
0
FOR =Forest, WDL=Woodland, GRS=Grassland, CRP=Cropland, URB=Urban, WAT=Water
Table Hc02. Percent riparian corridor land use for 14 digit and 11digit (bold) hydrologic (continued)
units within the North Fork Watershed. Data is based on MORAP Phase 1 Land Cover (1997) as
analyzed by Caldwell (1998).
Subwatershed
FOR
WDL
GRS
CRP
URB
WAT
40004
46.7
22.7
26.2
2.9
0
1.6
Lower Bryant
47.6
18.3
29.6
3.7
0
0.9
50001
21.7
48.2
28.7
1.5
0
0
50002
30.3
28.0
35.1
2.7
3.8
50003
37.4
29.1
29.8
3.1
0
0.6
50004
34.1
30.5
30.8
3.4
0
1.2
50005
11.4
8.1
79.4
1.1
0
0
West Norfork Lake
31.5
30.7
32.7
2.8
1.7
60001
29.1
12.2
57.1
1.6
0
0
60003
31.0
11.0
57.9
0
0
0
60004
37.7
11.1
42.0
4.5
4.7
<0.1
East Norfork Lake
32.7
11.0
46.9
2.9
2.5
<0.1
North Fork Watershed
47.1
17.8
31.1
3.1
0.3
0.6
<0.1
0.4
FOR =Forest, WDL=Woodland, GRS=Grassland, CRP=Cropland, URB=Urban, WAT=Water
HC 17
Table Hc03. Streams designated for cold-water sport fishery within the North Fork Watershed by MDNR
(1996a). Location given in section, township and range format.
Stream Name
Miles
From
To
County
Bryant Creek
1
3,23N,12W
34,24N,12W
Ozark
Bryant Creek
6
19,27N,14W
8,27N,15W
Douglas
Hunter Creek
5
22,26N,15W
20,26N,15W
Douglas
Hurricane Creek
1.5
Mouth
30,24N,12W
Ozark
North Fork River
13.5
3,22N,12W
28,24N,11W
Ozark
Spring Creek (Bryant)
3
Mouth
5,24N,13W
Douglas-Ozark
Spring Creek (North)
2.5
Mouth
26,25N,11W
Douglas
Spring Creek (South)
5
Mouth
14,23N,11W
Ozark
Turkey Creek
1
Mouth
17,23N,15W
Ozark
HC 18
Table Hc04. Average stream temperature (deg. Fahrenheit) and air temperature (Mountain Grove) for
thermograph Sites within the North Fork Watershed. Average stream temperature is based on observations
every 2 hours. Average air temperature is based on observations every hour.
Site
Stream
In Date
Out Date
n
Avg. Stream
Temp.
Avg. Air
Temp.
BC1
Brush Cr.
19950830
19950912
168
70.0
70.6
BC6
Brush Cr.
19950830
19950912
168
65.8
70.6
BC6a
Brush Cr.
19950830
19950912
168
63.9
70.6
BC7
Brush Cr.
19950830
19950912
168
69.1
70.6
BC1
Brush Cr.
19960718
19960910
660
72.8
73.6
BC4
Brush Cr.
19960717
19960910
660
71.9
73.6
BR50
Bryant Cr.
19950805
19950824
240
72.7
80.2
BR52
Bryant Cr.
19950805
19950824
240
66.3
80.2
BR56
Bryant Cr.
19950805
19950824
240
75.5
80.2
BR58
Bryant Cr.
19950805
19950824
240
70.7
80.2
BR60
Bryant Cr.
19950805
19950824
240
71.7
80.2
BR60a
Bryant Cr.
19950805
19950824
240
67.2
80.2
BR62a
Bryant Cr.
19950805
19950824
240
69.8
80.2
D1
Dry Cr.
19960724
19960909
576
67.1
72.9
F1
Fox Cr.
19950903
19950914
144
70.1
68.3
F5
Fox Cr.
19950903
19950914
144
68.8
68.3
F9
Fox Cr.
19950903
19950914
144
64.6
68.3
H1
Hurricane Cr.
19960718
19960919
768
64.9
71.9
HG1
Hungry Cr.
19950903
19950914
144
63.8
68.3
HG1
Hungry Cr.
19960701
19960910
492
68.1
73.2
HG3
Hungry Cr.
19960701
19960910
492
68.0
73.2
HC 19
HT6
Hunter Cr.
19950806
19950827
264
72.5
80.3
HT7
Hunter Cr.
19950806
19950827
264
73.9
80.3
Hunter Cr.
19950806
19950827
264
67.7
80.3
HT4
n=number of stream temperature observations for period of record.
Table Hc04. Average stream temperature (deg. Fahrenheit) and air temperature (Mountain (continued) Grove)
for thermograph Sites within the North Fork Watershed. Average stream temperature is based on observations
every 2 hours. Average air temperature is based on observation every hour.
Site
Stream
In Date
Out Date
n
Avg. Stream
Temp.
Avg. Air
Temp.
I15
Indian Cr.
19960726
19960918
660
70.8
71.1
I5
Indian Cr.
19960726
19960919
672
64.5
70.9
I9
Indian Cr.
19960726
19960918
660
72.3
71.1
LB2
L. Brush Cr.
19950830
19950911
156
65.9
70.5
LB3
L. Brush Cr.
19950830
19950911
156
67.3
70.5
N5
Noblett Cr.
19960724
19960909
576
71.4
72.9
N9
Noblett Cr.
19960724
19960918
684
69.3
71.2
NF40
North Fork R.
19950903
19950914
144
67.6
68.3
NF44
North Fork R.
19950903
19950914
144
65.8
68.3
NF49
North Fork R.
19950903
19950914
144
69.6
68.3
NF40
North Fork R.
19960701
19960910
492
71.5
73.2
NF50
North Fork R.
19960701
19960910
492
73.3
73.2
RC1a
Rippee Cr.
19950806
19950827
264
71.6
80.3
RC1
Rippee Cr.
19960717
19960910
672
69.5
73.8
RC4
Rippee Cr.
19960717
19960910
672
67.8
73.8
HC 20
RC6
Rippee Cr.
19960717
19960910
672
70.3
73.8
SP14
Spring Cr.
19960724
19960918
684
68.4
71.2
SP2
Spring Cr.
19960724
19960909
588
67.0
72.9
BS1
Big Spring Br.
19960724
19960909
588
74.6
72.9
SP8
Spring Cr.
19960724
19960909
588
67.0
72.9
TC
Turkey Cr.
19950805
19950827
264
69.8
80.1
WC2
Whites Cr.
19950806
19950827
264
73.5
80.3
Whites Cr.
19950806
19950827
264
72.9
80.3
WC3
n=number of stream temperature observations for period of record.
HC 21